I made the flight last weekend. Runway in use was 30 so I flew the RNP 30 approach. Visibility was fantastic but only IFR arrivals were allowed due to something with the pope being in Marseille and I wanted to practice the approach anyway. As mentioned higher RWY 30 may mean windy conditions and that was an understatement – on approach winds aloft were 40-45 kts and you fly just at the level of the surrounding hill tops. I was prepared for mountain waves but had never actually experienced one until then and it still was a bit of a stressful moment flying a 10 degree up angle at almost full power just to maintain Vy. Plan B would have been to ride the wave down but it didn’t come to that. Surrounding geography on the image below
The RNP 30 FAF to MAPt segment is also offset from the runway heading by 15 degrees but does not have a circling segment like RNP 12. I could have aligned with the runway before the MAPt (0.7 NM from threshold) but I didn’t and the AFISO made a bit of fun of me wondering why I was all over the place but otherwise was very helpful. Wind on landing was a much more comfortable 12 kts almost on runway heading. No one else in the air except a large turboprop (Twin Otter style but larger) being filmed on landing for some purpose.
I had emailed the airport the day before and requested hangar space which was confirmed but after landing no one seemed to be aware of our intended arrival let alone the hangaring request. In what I would say is rather typical style this led to a short discussion (in French) followed by first a clearance to park followed minutes later by an approval to taxi to one of their massive hangars, for which I was not charged either. A+ experience in the end.
No idea – sorry.
Actually this question of rule is not really relevant because if outside AFIS openning hours, they will gently refuse your FPL (happend to me once last year – I got a slot and felt outside hours, and the AFISO called me to say it will refuse my FPL). They will not receive IFR, so you will have to cancel IFR at one time or another in this case.
2 reason for that: their ridiculous opening hours (close at 4pm in the afternoon, unless you’re Bernie Ecclestone), and the approach path crosses the R64 MIL zone, and require a MIL controller to be instructed that you are coming..
When arriving there, I am usually contacting the AFISO while still with the approach controller – just leaving for 2 minutes – to ask for landing parameters and expected winds, but the visual must be asked to the APP controller – he/she proposed this way, but I have never done it because each time I’m going there, is for training purpose.
And once arriving, you are mostly sure that you can (or cannot) do a visual as, even when it’s scattered, clouds are right around the approach trajectory (a bit south along the ridge line of “la sainte Baume”). RW12 in force means winds from the east, and there it is synonym of bad weather. Otherwise it’s the RW30 if sunny and/or Mistral blowing (and prepare to be shaked on the approach, I hit the DA42 canopy while GO because of it…)
As it’s a 2d/non precision approach, you may do it (the RNAV C) “the old step-down way” until you can find a hole in the cheese, to get under the cloud. This way you may make it or not, but if you make it it will be hard to avoid the pattern. It is more or less expected to do this way as they mention “maintain MDA level until overhead aerodrome”. Or course most of traffic are going straight and nobody complains when possible.
IMO the visual part of this approach is still part of the IAP and therefore it would be unnecessary to cancel IFR.
The plates at Le Castellet say that the airfield cannot be used, other than based aircraft, if no AFIS is present..
If sticking to the AIP, therefore, there would be no necessity for this visual wording to appear and a direct (straight in approach) would always be possible even though the runway axis and the final approach do not line up.
IIRC if the offset was 30° or more then it would be a CTL.
So the reason for this visual section is again IMO airport specific and that probably relates to what greg_mp wrote.
At the end of the offset you will be at 1000ft and 0.7nm the MAP from the threshold. The offset means turning left to go from 110° to 125° approach track. But how early could you turn left with a 2180 hill immediately to the left of the final approach at 3.6 NM from the threshold and 2.nm from the MAP.
The procedure designers obviously thought that even with a 1400m runway, it was safer all round to make aircraft fly above the runway and make a normal right hand circuit (away from the hills) which also happens to correspond with the VFR circuit.
Does anyone know if Le Castellet is still owned by the ex wife of the ex head of formula 1 Bernie Ecclestone?
Just my 2cents I haven’t flown there for many years 6 or 7 I think.
greg_mp wrote:
AFIS cannot clear you for a visual, you have to cancel IFR.
Not that it would matter that much at an AFIS airport in visual conditions, but why do you have to cancel IFR? Why not just tell the AFISO that you will make a visual approach?
AFIS cannot clear you for a visual, you have to cancel IFR. In case of marginal weather, you’ll do the pattern. I tried once to make the straight-in direct version in a DA42 and you have to dive a bit, not a big thing as soon as you have visual, but again depend on the weather. This day it was very cloudy and we were 50ft to the minima when I got visual. But in the final descent, you are very close to mountain, more than usual.
It woulf normally be possible with an AFIS.
The CTL normally only comes into play if no ATS is present. I’ll have to have anothet look at the charts to see if there is a difference from the norm.
Just did this approach myself. I flew it by the book, i.e. down to 2330 then fly a normal VFR traffic pattern. I suspect the reason for this very odd approach is the surrounding terrain. Since I was doing it for instrument currency I didn’t try to switch to a straight in landing, but it would be worth asking on the radio if it’s possible.
You could also do the LNAV approach to rwy 30 followed by a circle to land (MVL) to Rwy 12.
Either way you do not need to cancel IFR as the CTL is part of an IFR procedure.
You can not do a straight in landing in France if there is no ATS on the airfield. That is the same for IFR or VFR.
At Le Castellet the CTL and the VFR circuit are pretty much the same.
Besides implying Circling minimums, the C in the name also reflects that the final track is not aligned with the runway and that is likely the reason for no straight in minimums. As pointed out by @gallois, a circling minimum does not mean that circling is mandatory. Continuing to land straight in is perfectly acceptable. With 960/1010’ minimums and >2nm from the threshold when reaching them, any Cat A/B aircraft should have no trouble doing a normal straight in descent to the runway if the winds allow. However, the comment about Visual phase implies that a straight in landing is not allowed and at least a circuit needs to be done. Given the airfield is only usable during ATS SKED (AFIS), there will be someone on the radio.
Having said that there is another thread about the “legality” of doing straight in landings after an IAP at airfields OCAS in France. But that is not really related to the chart.
Since contact the day before is mandatory if an IFR approach is planned, that would be a good time to ask them. If NW winds are more or less standard, then landing runway would be 30 anyway and the RNP Rwy 30 approach would make more sense since it has lower, and straight in, LNAV CDFA minimums.
Note that the IAP you show is out of date. The runways are now 12/30. And the VPT Rwy 12 seems more for circling off the RNP Rwy 30 IAP than the RNP C Rwy 12 IAP.
